Martinez 241374 v. Ryan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfredo Bruce Martinez, No. CV-19-04449-PHX-DLR (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report and 17 Recommendation (“R&R”), and advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file 18 objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a 19 waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. 20 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). No party objected, which relieves the 21 Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. 22 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court nonetheless has 23 reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. 24 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 124) is 25 ACCEPTED as follows: 26 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 116) is GRANTED. 27 2. Defendants Evans, Ryan, Hawley, Harkey, and Atwood are DISMISSED 28 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 3. Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 100) are 2 DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 4. Defendant Gomez is required to respond to the Eighth Amendment excessive 4 force claim in Count 2 and the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count 8 of 5 the First Amended Complaint. 6 5. Defendant Bernal is required to respond to the First Amendment access claim in 7 Count 7 of the First Amended Complaint 8 Dated this 4th day of January, 2021. 9 10 ll {Z, 12 _- {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-